Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/EU Map

[[Media:Image:EU map names isles.png|EU Map]]
Brilliant in its concise simpleness, elegant, easy to understand. Essential to fully understanding the article, European Union. D AVODD  [[User_talk:Davodd|« TALK »]] 00:49, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Particularly like how the user also created and posted a [[Media:Image:EU blank no rivers territories256.png|Blank Version]] that was used in other languages. A wonderful example of creating an open-source, collaboration-friendly illustration. - D AVODD  [[User_talk:Davodd|« TALK »]] 01:33, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Would support a colored version. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 01:46, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Umm. What? Are you on a greyscale display device? It has colour.
 * Support. Clear and informative. James F. (talk) 01:52, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It is a map. Its information is claear, which any good map should offer. It is not scintillating, arresting, breathtaking, or in any other way noteworty as anything more than a map. Denni &#9775; 02:15, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Informative indeed, but not featured picture worthy. --ScottyBoy900Q &#8734; 04:17, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Just a map, not even a superb one at that. Too small to see the southern Slavic countries clearly. ed g2s &bull;  talk
 * Would you rather it be out of scale? Or do you have a suggestion to rectify this?
 * "Too small to see..." refers to the whole map of course, the whole map should be larger. One does not expect to be able to see the text in a thumbnail. ed g2s  &bull;  talk  14:45, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's just a map. Alphax (talk) 07:00, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. (1) Much too small; (2) The colours are hard to tell apart, especially the 2007 admission from the candidate country. (3) The italic serif font used for non-members is very hard to read, especially at small sizes. If I didn't already know the name of Serbia and Montenegro I wouldn't be able to learn it from this map. (4) The text is not always horizontal. (5) Looks like it uses the Mercator Projection. (6) Inconsistent use of fonts: italic serif font means "neither member nor candidate" on the main map but something else on the inset. (7) Need a better caption for the inset than "Not on main map". Otherwise, nice. Gdr 11:14, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
 * Oppose, same reasons as Gdr, plus - GASP! - the font of Germany is smaller than the font of Poland! ;-) Chris 73 Talk 11:44, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I had a go. The map is so small that it's a real challenge to get all the names on and still have everything legible. What do you think? Gdr 18:01, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC) P.S. I'm pretty sure it's Guadeloupe, not "Guadalope". And I removed a spurious bit of border from near Moldova. (But should I have named Kaliningrad?)
 * Support. It's not "just a map". it's a good map, and good public domain maps are very rare. (it is a bit small, and there are some strange antialiasing-effects however) dab 10:29, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support the second version, which I think is rather lovely. Markalexander100 01:28, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't think the non-member countries should be named on that map. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 19:44, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The named non-member countries are the neighbours of the European Union. These countries are important to the EU and deserve to be mentioned. Gdr 13:20, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC) P.S. What about Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Merino, the Vatican and Transnistria? Should they appear on the map?
 * If any non-EU countries are included, they should have a color code that the legend clearly indicates as "non-EU countries" - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 19:31, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Done. Gdr 21:36, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
 * Did you upload the new version? The last two revisions have the exact same byte count, and appear to be identical. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 23:33, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Oops, I uploaded the old image again. How about now? Gdr 00:30, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)
 * Better! - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 17:28, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support the revised version (European Union map.png) - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 17:28, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The colours are a bit dull and it can be hard to read some of the place names. Perhaps it would be better if if it was bigger. Tra 12:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why are the non-contiguous parts of France, Spain and Portugal important enough to consume a large part of this map?   I imagine that other countries have their own islands as well that are not represented.  I propose that those be removed if there is no important reason that they should be retained. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 16:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The non-contiguous parts of France, Spain and Portugal are important enough for the same reason that Alaska and Hawai are important enough to include in a map of the USA. Aris Katsaris 03:06, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You might imagine that other countries have their own islands, but that doesn't make it true! (Places like Greenland, the Falkland Islands etc are dependent areas, not full subnational entities.) Gdr 21:08, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)
 * Interesting! At least I'm learning some things. The map as is makes it seem that French Guiana is an island, when it is actually a contiguous portion of South America (the part of the EU is actually in South America!)  Why can't I get this information from that map?  Maybe a footnote would help? - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 13:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Personally, I rather preferred the versions which were only with hues of blue. Perhaps it could be enhanced to make the distinction between the blues clearer, but the way that the blues gradually merged into the grays -- that was aesthetically pleasing. On the other hand pink and green are quite quite arbitary, and don't by themselves indicate which group is closer to membership and which isn't... Also, Croatia shouldn't be labelled as a 2007 admission. That's a mere *hope* of Croatia. No such date has been officially set, unlike Romania and Bulgaria so please let's put it back as a mere candidate. And also you should color the *whole* of Croatia -- currently only a part of it is colored. Aris Katsaris 03:06, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Croatia now coloured as a candidate. (Which part of it is uncoloured?) I used pink and green because I couldn't find three shades of pale blue that I could easily distinguish. Remember that not everyone has the same acuteness of colour vision. Gdr 21:08, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)
 * Comment: I still find the color near-impossible to see on my (not high-contrast) LCD monitor. Would appreciate strengthening of hues. --Twinxor 21:13, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: As the original author I will be bold enough to say that this map (my version) is not without its faults. I would however suggest that it is good enough to be considered for featured picture candidates. As an aside, User:Gdr's upload to a separate location has caused a slight problem as regards image history (attribution and links to previous versions). I've added this information to the new image page, so that should be OK as long as the earlier versions at the other location are left intact. In any case, no widespread discussion has yet taken place as to whether the new version is preferable. zoney &#09827; talk 11:10, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Why is Iceland included (with a label) on this map? - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 19:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Because it's part of Europe. Gdr 21:27, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)
 * And so are Andorra, Armenia, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino and Vatican City. Why aren't they labeled on the map? - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 22:16, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * NOT Promoted, +5/-8 -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 07:43, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

